Conservatives Concern with Earmarks, Iraq and Immigration

About the Author

Earmark Reform is a big issue for conservatives, because the
American people want to see members of Congress weed out waste,
fraud and abuse from the federal budget. Most earmarks are
special-interest pork projects for a specific state or
congressional district. On March 13, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)
offered an amendment to create "a 1-year moratorium on all earmarks
by establishing a 67-vote point of order against bills with
earmarks." Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain were co-sponsors. It
failed, with only 29 senators voting yea.

In November 2007, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) spoke to the Senate
about the pervasive problem of earmarks: "The earmark system exists
to serve politicians, not local communities. Members earmark funds
rather than advocate for grants because they want the political
credit for spending money. Earmarks oftentimes are worthwhile, but
the system under which they are propagated is not. Earmarks are the
gateway drug to overspending, one of the No. 1 issues for which the
American people have a problem with Congress. Our problem is, we
refuse to make the tough choices families have to make every day,
every week within their own budgets." Conservatives should note
that Obama and McCain are on the record voting in favor of stopping
Congress from earmarking special-interest projects.

The ultimate goal would be to stop the growth of congressional
spending and engage in true earmark reform. According to Brian
Riedl of The Heritage Foundation, Congress has funded the following
earmarks: $3.7 million for the Formosan Subterranean Termite House
and $150,000 for Rodent Control on the Aleutian Islands. And
conservatives remember the now infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in
Alaska as the poster child of federal monies going to
special-interest projects. Congress needs to take the (relatively)
small step of stopping wasteful congressional earmarks, if only to
prove they have the will to tackle serious entitlement reform with
no tax increases.

Iraq

Unlike Congress, our troops in Iraq are working hard this week,
as they do every week. Together with our coalition partners,
American troops have made great strides in Iraq by allowing Iraqi
Security Forces to take the lead in operations which have brought
measurable calm to Basra. Also, the Iraqi government has made
important political accomplishments and reforms, including a
pension law, De-Ba'athification reform, and a government operating
under a budget. While Iraq's young constitutional democracy seeks
to defeat international terrorists and insurgents supported by
Iran, it needs continued American military support to do so.

Last September the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment that would
have prohibited American forces from engaging in combat operations
in Iraq except under certain circumstances. If that amendment had
passed, American troops would have been halting successful
activities just as Gen. David Petraeus was announcing a reduction
in attacks last December. The passage of this amendment may have
prevented American forces from providing necessary aid to Iraqis to
the degree they did in Basra.

Not surprisingly, McCain and Obama parted ways on this issue.
McCain's vote against the resolution was consistent with his
long-standing support for winning the war in Iraq. But Obama voted
to handicap the Iraqis just as they are starting to stand on their
own two feet.

Immigration

Last year's debate on so-called "comprehensive immigration
reform" was widely rejected by the American people as an amnesty
bill that could cost the taxpayers trillions in new entitlement
spending. One shocking vote during the debate was on an amendment
by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) to "establish a permanent bar for gang
members, terrorists and other criminals."

Cornyn's amendment failed, 46-51, with Obama and McCain opposing
it. Cornyn expressed concern about the vote: "I believe this
amendment and the vote on this amendment is a defining issue for
those who seek the highest office in the land, for them to
demonstrate their respect for the rule of law and to demonstrate
their desire to return law and order to our immigration system."
The amendment has specific bars for members of gangs and terrorists
and would arguably be an easy vote for those running for our
nation's highest office. Yet Obama and McCain voted against this
common-sense amendment. Conservatives want to stop the expansion of
the welfare state and prevent violent criminals from being granted
preferred immigration status. What do Obama and McCain want?

Brian Darling is
director of US Senate relations and congressional analyst at The
Heritage Foundation.